ospf_neighbors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the most non-obvious trait: a device without OSPF yields an empty list, never an error. It also implies a read-only listing and names the underlying path, but says nothing about permissions, volume, or freshness of the adjacency data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded: the action, scope, and returned fields come first, with the empty-list caveat second. The embedded API path and the stray line breaks add minor noise but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only listing with an output schema already present, the definition is essentially complete: purpose, scope, and the empty-result edge case are covered, so return formatting need not be restated. Only the device_name semantics and any permission expectations are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter device_name is never mentioned in the description, so no format or identification guidance is added. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List OSPF neighbor adjacencies'), pins the exact data source path (/routing/ospf/neighbor), and enumerates returned fields (address, state, router-id, adjacency). This clearly separates it from siblings like bgp_sessions, arp_table/neighbors, and ipv6_neighbors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the OSPF-specific scope, and the note that non-OSPF devices return an empty list rather than an error is a useful operational cue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over related tools (e.g. bgp_sessions or generic neighbor listings) and no prerequisites or device scope guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.